Title, director and release year? Title: Homo Toxicus Director: Carole Poliquin Release Year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Chemicals are everywhere, and there is an impressive amount of toxic chemicals in our environment that we are exposed to everyday. These chemicals work their way into living organisms, which can affect gene expression and can be transferred from one generation to another. The director, Carole, is the main character in this film and she analyzes her blood for toxins. In general she lives in a lightly polluted city, yet the test showed that she had traces of 20 heavy metals. Carole throughout the film investigates the link between toxic chemicals we encounter every day and their effects on humans.
Some chemicals can weaken the immune system, so that the victim is more susceptible to cancer and illnesses, while others can heighten the immune system, but this can trigger hypersensitivity and hyper immunity. Children who have been exposed to PCBs have slower transmission of information to the optic nerve, while mercury heightens transmissions to the optic nerve, but it may be so fast that the brain cannot process the information. PBDE, which is a flame retardant in clothing, stuffed animals, sofas and etc. are seen in higher traces in mother’s milk. Rats exposed to PBDE are hyperactive and they have a heighten thyroid problems.
In general, small amounts of chemicals alter our biological processes. Some chemicals at low levels alter gene expression. Chemicals can activate genes at the wrong time, or prevent hormones from activating properly. Bisphenol A, for instance, can alter cell signaling at 0.23 parts per trillion. At higher levels, it can cause breast cancer, prostate cancer, insulin resistance. The U.S. allows this chemical at 0.5 parts per million. Bisphenol A is in canned foods, vinyl, stain repellants, and water bottle. It has been shown that hormones in cows can cause cancer, and fruits and vegetables contain more pesticides than ever before. People who eat a lot of fish have lower IQs, and in general farmers have lower sperm count because of the amount of herbicides and pesticides they use on a daily basis on their farms.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problems the film draws out is that being exposed to a wealth of toxins every day has very negative side effects to human health. So, not only are the toxic things that we are exposed to made of unsustainable material, which require a lot of energy to produce, but fixing the problems that they later cause requires more energy and more resources than the actual substance that caused these problems.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I believe the most compelling piece of information the director offers is the idea that she lived in a lightly polluted city, yet her body had traces of 20 heavy metals.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There was one part of the film that noted that frogs were affected by some toxin, and then abstracted the claim that humans would also be affected by the toxin. I believe this claim is ridiculous since humans and frogs are too different genetically to make this claim relevant.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film has compelled me to seek out what substances I use everyday contain these type of toxins, and what environmentally friendly are not as human friendly as one would think. For instance, I found out that Spaghettios contain Bisphenol A, and that the chemical used to make bamboo clothing softer contains lots of toxins. Also, I’m interested in finding out what companies that market themselves as natural and organic really carry products that are toxic.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe the audience best suited for this film is people who are open to rethinking the way they live. The film points at so many things that people use daily that are toxic, that it can be a little bit overwhelming. Viewers are certainly made more aware of the impact what seemingly harmless products can actually do. For instance, a plastic water bottle is not only a vessel for water, it also causes cancer. I believe viewers will do more research on the types of products they use every day.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
It is implied that we should think more about what we are actually consuming. So instead of simply buying fruit from the super market, research where the food actually comes from and the condition it was grown in. Farmers market and most organic foods are great because, for the most part, they grown in conditions that do not use all these pesticides and herbicides.
Additionally, policies need to be changed. If it is shown that Bisphenol A can alter cell signaling at 0.23 per trillion.Perhaps we shouldn’t allow it at this chemical at 0.5 per million.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think if the film offered more solutions towards fixing the problem, the film could have done more. For instance, if it pointed out what products could have been easily be swapped for current products that are toxic, more can be learned on how to take the steps to live a better nontoxic life.
Homo Toxicus
Title, director and release year?
Title: Homo Toxicus
Director: Carole Poliquin
Release Year: 2007
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
Chemicals are everywhere, and there is an impressive amount of toxic chemicals in our environment that we are exposed to everyday. These chemicals work their way into living organisms, which can affect gene expression and can be transferred from one generation to another. The director, Carole, is the main character in this film and she analyzes her blood for toxins. In general she lives in a lightly polluted city, yet the test showed that she had traces of 20 heavy metals. Carole throughout the film investigates the link between toxic chemicals we encounter every day and their effects on humans.
Some chemicals can weaken the immune system, so that the victim is more susceptible to cancer and illnesses, while others can heighten the immune system, but this can trigger hypersensitivity and hyper immunity. Children who have been exposed to PCBs have slower transmission of information to the optic nerve, while mercury heightens transmissions to the optic nerve, but it may be so fast that the brain cannot process the information. PBDE, which is a flame retardant in clothing, stuffed animals, sofas and etc. are seen in higher traces in mother’s milk. Rats exposed to PBDE are hyperactive and they have a heighten thyroid problems.
In general, small amounts of chemicals alter our biological processes. Some chemicals at low levels alter gene expression. Chemicals can activate genes at the wrong time, or prevent hormones from activating properly. Bisphenol A, for instance, can alter cell signaling at 0.23 parts per trillion. At higher levels, it can cause breast cancer, prostate cancer, insulin resistance. The U.S. allows this chemical at 0.5 parts per million. Bisphenol A is in canned foods, vinyl, stain repellants, and water bottle. It has been shown that hormones in cows can cause cancer, and fruits and vegetables contain more pesticides than ever before. People who eat a lot of fish have lower IQs, and in general farmers have lower sperm count because of the amount of herbicides and pesticides they use on a daily basis on their farms.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The sustainability problems the film draws out is that being exposed to a wealth of toxins every day has very negative side effects to human health. So, not only are the toxic things that we are exposed to made of unsustainable material, which require a lot of energy to produce, but fixing the problems that they later cause requires more energy and more resources than the actual substance that caused these problems.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I believe the most compelling piece of information the director offers is the idea that she lived in a lightly polluted city, yet her body had traces of 20 heavy metals.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
There was one part of the film that noted that frogs were affected by some toxin, and then abstracted the claim that humans would also be affected by the toxin. I believe this claim is ridiculous since humans and frogs are too different genetically to make this claim relevant.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film has compelled me to seek out what substances I use everyday contain these type of toxins, and what environmentally friendly are not as human friendly as one would think. For instance, I found out that Spaghettios contain Bisphenol A, and that the chemical used to make bamboo clothing softer contains lots of toxins. Also, I’m interested in finding out what companies that market themselves as natural and organic really carry products that are toxic.
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I believe the audience best suited for this film is people who are open to rethinking the way they live. The film points at so many things that people use daily that are toxic, that it can be a little bit overwhelming. Viewers are certainly made more aware of the impact what seemingly harmless products can actually do. For instance, a plastic water bottle is not only a vessel for water, it also causes cancer. I believe viewers will do more research on the types of products they use every day.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
It is implied that we should think more about what we are actually consuming. So instead of simply buying fruit from the super market, research where the food actually comes from and the condition it was grown in. Farmers market and most organic foods are great because, for the most part, they grown in conditions that do not use all these pesticides and herbicides.
Additionally, policies need to be changed. If it is shown that Bisphenol A can alter cell signaling at 0.23 per trillion.Perhaps we shouldn’t allow it at this chemical at 0.5 per million.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
I think if the film offered more solutions towards fixing the problem, the film could have done more. For instance, if it pointed out what products could have been easily be swapped for current products that are toxic, more can be learned on how to take the steps to live a better nontoxic life.